Reinstatement carries continuity of service even where intervening employment defeats back-wage claims.

The teacher was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher at the appellant school in 1981.

After the Education Department questioned his appointment, he was relieved on 18 March 1985 without prior notice.

In 1998, the High Court set aside the relieving endorsement for breach of natural justice; on appeal, a Division Bench directed the Chief Educational Officer to reconsider the matter after hearing the teacher and stated that reinstatement with back wages would follow if he was found eligible.

The teacher was reinstated with effect from 28 June 1999. His later request for back wages for the period from 18 March 1985 to 27 June 1999 and for continuity of service was rejected because he had worked at another school during the intervening period. The Single Judge quashed that rejection and granted back wages and continuity; the school appealed.

1. Whether the teacher was entitled to continuity of service after the order relieving him was set aside and he was reinstated.

2. Whether the teacher was entitled to back wages for the period between his relief and reinstatement, given that he had worked at another school during that period.

Relying on Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, (2002) 9 SCC 492, the Court applied the principle that where termination is set aside and the employee is reinstated, continuity of service ordinarily follows because reinstatement is not a fresh appointment; denial of continuity cannot be sustained on that basis alone.

Back wages are a separate question and may be denied in light of the circumstances of the case.

The Court treated the order relieving the teacher as having been set aside and observed that the later rejection of his claim was based on his employment at another school during the intervening period.

Applying Gurpreet Singh, it held that this did not defeat continuity of service, since the teacher’s case was one of reinstatement following the setting aside of his termination, not fresh appointment.

However, because he had worked at another school during the period for which he sought arrears, the Court concluded that he was not entitled to back wages.

The appeal was partly allowed. The Writ Court’s order was modified accordingly; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.